INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Jobs

what's "package" talking about here?

what's "package" talking about here?

(OP)
HEY,everyone here,i havnt been here for a long time,are all of you fine?
Recently,i read the book"chassis system design methodology".In the book,One sentence goes like this:"The overall design of suspension systems is mainly driven by several key factors, including handling, ride,package, cost and durability."The "package" confuses me,does it mean assembly technique or other concept? Could anyone make a explaination for me? Thank you in advance.

RE: what's "package" talking about here?

I'd venture a guess that it's meant to be "packaging" i.e. the space required...

RE: what's "package" talking about here?

If you mean "packaging", that's the process of getting the parts you chose to perform all of those other functions, and all of the associated electrical and fluid lines that support them, plus the passenger and cargo volumes to all physically fit and be at least reasonably constructable.  Ideally, the end result would also be easily serviceable for all components.

Sometimes the same space is "ideal" for more than one item, if you only look at each of them in isolation from the rest.  At this point you have to assign priority to one and move the other(s).  Repeat as necessary.  Consider the compromises that might occur as you try to fit the exhaust system, chassis structure, rear suspension, fuel tank, and spare tire well all together while still providing as much useful trunk volume as possible.


Norm

RE: what's "package" talking about here?

Norm has it, it is jargon. The packaging group put together the basic volumes in the car, so for suspension they'll decide wheel sizes, cut angles, wheel travels and so on. This will have to miss the bodywork, and give the right approach angles and so on.

Then vehicle dynamics come along and say we can't do this, and that is silly, and we need this. Then styling come along and add their 2 cents. Assembly then point out that in fact the subframe that's been sketched won't fit on a pallet. Crash tell us we can't possibly use a rigid subframe. NVH tell us we can't possibly have a compliant subframe. So we all bitch and moan and model and pout and argue and simulate and eventually compromises are reached. That's why having a Chapman or an Issigonis is quicker.

Typical realistic constraints imposed by packaging control placement of the steering rack and routing of the steering column, at the front, and rather more at the rear, depending on architecture.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: what's "package" talking about here?

Random example.

Trailing arms with a twist-beam axle connecting the two sides, "packages" very well into the back end of a front-wheel-drive car, and millions of cars are built this way.

It would also conceptually work with rear engine rear drive, although it might not be the best choice for handling, and given that this layout has gone out of favour, I know of no examples although the little "smart" is sorta similar. Still, conceptually, it could work.

But it won't work with front-engine rear-wheel-drive (or all-wheel-drive), because the drive shaft wants to slice right through where the axle wants to be. The all-wheel-drive variations of what is normally a front-wheel-drive chassis with a twist-beam rear axle, usually have a completely different (either fully independent, or a complete solid axle) rear suspension design so that it will work with the drive shaft.

RE: what's "package" talking about here?

That's a great example. The forces of evil will then counterattack and say well why not run the twistbeam behind the diff? OK, we toodle off and come back with a feasible suspension design doing that. However, they'll say, that means we can't have an exhaust, and rear crash gets worse, and we lose boot volume and spare tire well, can't you put the twistbeam in front of the diff. So we say no, that means no drivehsaft, remember? And so it goes...

Also to be honest you can get away with stuff on a non driven axle that you can't on a driven axle, so commonality is not a given even if it all fits.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close